255 Comments

EVERYONE SHOULD VOTE !!! But people should not think that that is all they should do !! They should look to empower themselves and maybe even try to inform, inspire, mobilise and organise for the 99% !

If you give the slightest fuk about your country & democracy in The US, then please watch the following video from Thom Hartmann in its entirety - but especially the five very powerful minutes from minute 23 :

Everyone should also take a moment to look at those running - incumbent as well as challengers - to see where they stand on important issues - like supporting KXL ( hang the bums whatever their affiliation )

Only by getting rid of ALL of the politicians who do not support sanity and clean progress - only then does this world stand a chance in hell of getting better for ALL.

Yes, ''everyone should vote'' - no two ways about it ! However, in any choice of 'ONLY A or B' - just how do 'C or D or E or F', ever get a look in ?!! Democracy can Not just be about a choice of two, especially when both are bought and paid for by the same or very similar MIC, Corporate or Bankster interests !!!

"Everyone should also take a moment to look at those running - incumbent as well as challengers - to see where they stand on important issues - like supporting KXL ( hang the bums whatever their affiliation )"

( EDIT ) 15.00 an hour - IS - the very least that should ( at this time ) be considered as a minimum wage = anywhere in the country. Tied to inflation/cost of living.

And no Bernie Sanders and Kashama Sawant were not flukes to be elected to office - but are still rare sane choices. Good to see sanity get elected instead of "disgusted with government" choices like Jessie V

EDIT -> Though Jessie V ( in my book ) is still a lot more sane of a choice than Boner or Bitchelle or Ayn Ryan/Rand or Scott or or or or even Harry's Reed or or or or or McCon-all or or or or

Yes, for sure the Independent Senator and self described 'democratic socialist', ''Bernie Sanders says, VOTE!!!'' & I agree with that - but a very large part of the problem for The 99% is that there are so few people Like Sen. Sanders to vote FOR !! D'you geddit - or is it just God Damned Dems uber alles ?!

Feel free to link to Bernie making things clear but IF you don't get that there are 'conservatives' inside The Democratic Party, especially On-The-Hill - then you're really not getting the reason OWS exists !!

Hmmm, ''sleazy'' is dishonestly hitching The Corporate Captured Dem Party Machine and Pols to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) - 'cause he isn't one is he ?!!!

Of course Bernie will caucus with the likes of Elizabeth Warren & Alan Grayson .. but I'll bet he misses Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney and regrets that 99%-centred Dem Pols like them have no part in today's 'Dem Party Machine On The Hill' !!

Further - ''sleazy'' is pretending that there is not A Massive Difference between the well intentioned Dem Voters and the (mostly) millionaire Democrat Politicians OR pretending that many {most?!} of Dem Pols are somehow not conservatives or that they are not subject to the corrupting influence of The Banksters, Corporations & The US War Machine !

OWS is not about a tweedledumb and tweedledumber choice of just two Corporate Captured, Controlled and Corrupted Parties .. OWS is about 'democracy' and the ravages of modern high-finance ; low-morals 'crapitalism' - something no less facilitated by Blow Job Bill & Obummer as by any Republicunt POTUS.

Beginning in 1878, millions of American farmers began banding together to break the post-Civil War, small-farmer enslaving crop-lien system with co-operative economics. When they were bested by corrupt and abusive practices of the national financial sector, they attempted to improve their circumstances by forming the People's Party and engaging in populist politics. Again they were bested, this time by the country's mainstream two-party system. However, the Progressive Era had just begun. Before it ended, it would become one of the greatest democracy movements in recorded history.

Fired by the efforts of millions of farmers, exposes written by investigative journalists (the famous muckrakers), and correlations between special interests' abuses of farmers and special interests' abuses of urban workers, Progressives formed nationally connected citizen organizations to extend this democracy movement. From 1898 to 1918, the Progressives, supported by tens of millions of citizens, forced direct democracy petition components into the constitutions of twenty-six states.

The constitutional placement of direct democracy petition components was seen by those citizen majorities as necessary. Given the obvious corruption in state governments, the lack of sovereign public control over the output of state legislatures was seen as "the fundamental defect" in the nation's legislative machinery. Advocates insisted that the only way to make the founding fathers' vision work was to take the "misrepresentation" out of representative government with the sovereign people's direct legislation (Special Committee of the National Economic League, 1912 https://archive.org/stream/initiativerefere00nati#page/n0/mode/2up ). Nebraska adopted the referendum for municipal governments within its boundaries in 1897. South Dakota was the first state to adopt the referendum, in 1898, patterning its system after that of Switzerland. However, it was not all successful. Most notably, residents of Texas rejected the referendum because the version put on the ballot by the legislature required 20% of the vote. Other states where the constitutional amendments to place direct democracy failed include Mississippi, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. By 1918 enthusiasm waned and the next state to adopt the referendum was Florida 50 years later.

Initiative and referendum (I&R) citizen lawmaking spread across the United States because state legislatures were unresponsive in creating laws that the people needed to protect themselves from lobby groups, laissez-faire economics, and the era's robber barons. Additionally, while legislatures were quick to pass laws benefitting special interests, both legislatures and the courts were inflexible in their refusals to amend, repeal or adjudicate those laws in ways that would eliminate special interest advantages and end abuses of the majority.

Thanx ! Excellent history and links Leo !! But you'll note that my comment which you replied to, seems to have vanished. It was on BCT not long ago & was a comment totally in tune with core OWS tenets, so very troubling that it would be banned, censored, deleted or .. 'removed' !!! :-( So here it is again ;-)

Perhaps you're ''a Sleazy False Flag Plant for the'' .. 1% Pandering & Corporate Co-opted Democrap Party On The Hill !!! Or maybe you're just another duped and deluded parDisan !! YOU - ''offer nothing but distraction and failure'' .. I'd suggest and read the following for clear evidence and proof of exactly that, IF you have got the spine to do so, that is !

''What’s preventing the Democrats from becoming inspirational? They know all too well that by venturing too far to the left they could easily instigate a real mass movement. And such a movement is not easily controlled and would inevitably demand much more than the corporate-minded Democrats are willing to concede, which, at this point, is virtually nothing aside from musty rhetoric.

''Unlike the Republican’s populist turn to the right that created the now-defunct Tea Party, a true left turn would mean have the potential to rejuvenate the millions’ strong labor movement, while engaging tens of millions more into active political life, driving people to participate in mass marches, rallies, labor strikes and other forms of mass action.

''This was what happened during the “old populism” in U.S. history, which the Democrats are taking their trendy namesake from. The populist movement of the late 1800’s was a genuine mass movement of workers and farmers, which briefly aligned in an independent political party, the People’s Party, also known as the populists.

''The populist movement that included strike waves and local rural rebellions had nothing to do with the lifeless politics of the Democratic Party, and threatened the very foundation of America corporate power. The Democrats are keenly aware of this type of real populist “threat,” and they are willing to do anything to stop it.

''For example, the Occupy movement proved that the Democrats fear real left populism much more than they fear far-right populism. We now know that the Obama administration worked with numerous Democratic Party mayors and governors across the nation to undermine and destroy the Occupy movement through mass arrests, police violence and surveillance. And because Occupy succeeded in changing the national conversation about income inequality, the Democrats were forced to engage with the rhetoric of the movement they dismembered, and now use the plagiarized language as proof of their “populism.”

If I was on the moderator board, you'd be labeled "R" for rightist, false-flag, anti-government, pro-1%-Republicon, propagandist. Allowed to post merely to educate others how devious the 1%-Cons operate.

Unable to address the core points and pathologically unable to deal with ANY criticisms of The Dem Party Pols On The Hill, you do naught but reveal yourself for the shrill shill that you are !!! Get a wider view asap !! Sheesh !

The 1% despots don't really care if you bow down and worship (although they'd love it if you did), they have a reliable base of unreachable zombies who will Vote for them NO MATTER WHAT! In addition to their Voter Suppression and Counting - Election Fraud Schemes. They'd just like another 20 million or so Dems or Undecideds or Newbies or Indies to be discouraged, disappointed, mad or brainwashed enough not to Vote, again, like they did in 2010!!! That would make them have a very happy '14 election cycle ENDING!

The 1% despots don't really care if you vote Democrat or Republican so long as you continue to vote for either one of their big money backed corporate representatives as they have a reliable base of unreachable zombies who will Vote for them NO MATTER WHAT!

So long as people reject the pursuit of democracy to rely upon the election of the corporate aristocracy, the 1% wins.

Those who advocate voting for the duopoly defend the corporate aristocracy.

So, Leo, on one side of your naive or traitorous mouth (I can't tell which) you advocate the pursuit of democracy! And on the other side you denounce the democratic process of electoral participation, Voting!

You're either completely mindfucked or completely evil. WRONG either way!

Pursue democracy people, VOTE!

Cheney-W repealed Wall Street regulatory laws and got us into bogus wars before they were in office one year. 1%-Cons and Teabaggers sabotaged congress and Obama and gerrymandered voting districts as soon as they were sworn-in after 20+ million Voters didn't Vote in 2010!!

The pursuit of democracy and Voting make a big difference, a HUGE DIFFERENCE! That's why the 1%-Cons pushed through Citizens United, so they could spend unlimited and undisclosed Billion$ to propagandize you to either Vote for their RepubliCon candidate or issue directly, or indirectly by Not Voting!

Looks like you're a 'protected person' around these parts !!! Is it nice to be a 'made man', huh ?!! If your delicate ears need to be protected from different opinions and analyses re. Dem Party Machine & Pols, then it means 'admin and/or mods' are arguably, somewhat compromised here, lolol & sssheeeeeesh !

You'd have to be a mentally ill, shrill shill to think that I have anything to do with The GOP and you are deluded IF you think that - The Dem Party Machine & the Pols On The Hill are not Corporate Co-opted, Corrupted & Controled creatures of The 1% lackeys of The 0.01% Parasite Class !!! You fkn bumptious oaf !! Go get a fkn clue about ''democracy'' outside of the corrupted confines of duopoly ! Eg. read this :

''Capitalists spread prosperity only when threatened by global rivalry, radical movements and the risk of uprisings at home.''

''The 1% are not about to expropriate themselves, even if asked nicely. And they have spent the past 30 years creating a lock on media and politics to ensure no one will do so through electoral means.''

''Since no one in their right mind would wish to revive anything like the Soviet Union, we are not going to see anything like the mid-century social democracy created to combat it either. If we want an alternative to stagnation, impoverishment and ecological devastation, we're just'' going to have to figure out a way to unplug the machine and start again.''

"So the question isn’t just whether Democrats can find their drop-off supporters and turn them out to the polls, but, assuming that plan is successful, whether Republicans will let them vote when they get there."

Not being sarcastic. I’ve voted in every national, state and local election for forty-five years. It hasn’t made a difference, not even a little bit. I will continue to vote, but I’m not naive enough to believe we can vote our way out of this mess. In politics everyone is trying to sell you something. The one that does the best sales job wins. It’s smoke and mirrors. Big business and the lobbyists chose our politicians, and pretty much control them. I don’t know the solution. OWS says we have the answer, The tea Party says we have the answers, the libertarians say they have the answer. But the masses aren’t listening, and probably never will.

"It is time for the Republican Party to look into the mirror, examine its soul, consider its commitment to the principles of our democracy, and stop all these voter suppression tactics that put politics above policy … partisanship above principle."

"Groups challenging the law urged the justices to let the appeals court’s ruling stand. The state law, they said, had “surgically eliminated the precise forms of registration and voting that had enabled significant expansion of African-Americans’ civic participation in North Carolina over the previous decade.”

"It turns out that AFP has sent hundreds of thousands of these error-ridden, confusing voter registration forms in North Carolina, and both local elections offices and the state board of elections have been swamped with phone calls from confused voters. The forms had numerous bits of misinformation, from filing deadlines to where to send the completed forms to who to contact for more information. The scope of this misinformation is massive, considering it's gone to hundreds of thousands of voters, and has resulted in an investigation by the state, after the state Democratic Party filed an official complaint. Deliberately misinforming voters is a felony."

" Lawson says that, as of now, no one is accusing the Kochs of deliberately misinforming voters on registration information to suppress the vote, which is a felony. Yeah, sure they're not disseminating incorrect information on purpose. It's not like they have unlimited resources to use to research how voter registration works in North Carolina and to inform voters. Which they didn't do, also according to Lawson. The Board works with political groups to avoid this kind of thing. AFP didn't contact them. "

"These Republican, ALEC, Americans for Prosperity, and Koch brother attacks on America’s democracy are not solely targeting African Americans; they are targeting working-class Americans who are working longer hours to survive and have issues making it to the polls on Election Day. Regardless if it is eliminating early voting, sending out phony polling place and voter registration information, or threatening armed intimidation of voters, Republicans are attacking America’s fragile democracy."

ALEC, Americans for Prosperity, and Koch brother attacks on America’s democracy are not solely targeting African Americans; they are targeting working-class Americans who are working longer hours to survive

{ targeting working-class Americans } And Heritage and CATO and and and and and and and and and

Absolutely - it is most notable/obvious/apparent/blatant/open in red-states - but - is also being pushed in ALL States - It is just being pushed more on the down-low ( in tactics/approach ) in States with lesser concentrations ( less obvious/pronounced ) of the struggling poor - lower class - middle class.

"While Hong Kong’s chief, Lueng Chin-yin, dismissed the calls from the street that he step down by midnight, he offered one concession by assigning his second in command official to seek talks with demonstrators."

"And finally... While Red states are working hard to disenfranchise voters, one state is trying to get more people to the polls. Last week, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn announced his support for a same-day registration bill, after that legislation cleared both state houses. This new law will allow voters to register or update their information on the same day they cast a ballot, and similar laws have boosted turnout by as much as 14 percent in an election. Same-day registration actually benefits the very groups that other states are trying to keep from voting. Minorities, low-income Americans, and young voters all participate at higher numbers in states where they can register and vote on the same day. Some states are working hard to keep voter turnout as low as possible, because Republicans know their leverage in election goes up as the voting population goes down. Thankfully, lawmakers in Illinois prefer that everyone who wants to vote has the best chance to participate in our democracy. Hopefully more states will follow their lead.

And that's the way it is - for the week of June 9, 2014 – I'm Thom Hartmann – on the Economic and Labor News"

''There is no better proof in 2014 of how invaluable the right to vote is than the amount of money currently being spent on efforts to take it away.

''From voter ID laws, to the curtailing of early voting, to dark money groups disseminating misinformation, around the country, a staggering amount of wealth and influence is quietly being funneled into campaigns to keep people from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

''There is nothing new about this. In many ways, voter suppression is a tactic nearly as old as our republic itself; an enduring legacy of the many forms of oppression that are inextricable from the story of our founding. Contemporary schemes to disenfranchise American voters may be the most sophisticated, covert, and cynically exploitative in political memory. But they are, in many ways, more of the same -- just the most recent additions to America’s ugly and often brutal history of voter suppression.''

''Voter ID’s supporters typically justify such laws by claiming they are necessary to prevent people from showing up at the polls pretending to be someone else. This form of voter fraud, however, is practically non-existent. Indeed, a statewide investigation by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) — a leading supporter of voter ID — uncovered exactly zero cases of voter impersonation fraud in that state. Studies of voter fraud in other states reached similar results.'' - from your 'thinkprogress.org' link.

Hmmm .. ''enjoyment & agitation'' !!! I like that !! A lot ! From your very interesting link, I quote :

''No one envisioned the Bundy Ranch standoff before it occurred. No one envisioned the Oklahoma City bombing in advance, either. But there have been people warning us that these sorts of things can happen. And now we’re being warned that, with the addition of religion to the mix, something far more toxic could well lie ahead. Remember, these are people who believe they’re fulfilling God’s plan. When things don’t go their way, it’s hard to grasp the depth of their disappointment — and anger. Until it isn’t. And then, it’s too late.''

Interesting ME / ''IS'' parallels, imo !!! The same parallels can also be found in The Zionist-Apartheid Enitity too !! Anyone else tired of all this Abrahamic Mumbo Jumbo ?! How can anyone claim unique access to eternal & universal spiritual truths, just due to the accident of birth, conversion or education ?

Never mind the whole video - did you just watch those 5 minutes - from minute 23 ?! You are a bit of a political parDy strategist here, right ?!! So rather than just dismissing my comment point blank please watch Thom Hartmann's extremely interesting ''Daily Take'' segment & btw, I am not sure how you are going appeal to the 50% who don't vote my going further to the right !!!

But TH thinks the exact opposite is possible so please do us both a favour & watch. You never know, maybe we can either agree or even discuss it without being abusive lol.

Here's the timing issue. I have been voting, and listening to politicians for many years now. I can't afford groceries now, and I work two jobs with the wife working one. We are trying to get the farm off the ground, and just found out that not only is insurance going to cost nearly $1000.00 but my wonderful government mandated inspection could cost as much as $2000.00. I am stretched so thin I can't stretch any more. What I've been doing isn't working. It's time to stand up.

Cause it's worked so well in the past? Voting is important, but when you are given a choice between an apple and an orange, which do you choose? As far as the 1% are concerned it doesn't matter because they own them both.

No, we have the lowest Voter (and highest Big $$) turnout, and almost the worst propaganda, in the world. So, idiot, our survival as a people is pure luck and diminishing due entirely to OUR ABJECT NEGLIGENCE!!!!!

Shada66 your election time protests have become obviously subversive, you hate democracy, just say it! Before or after elections you do/say nothing to promote third parties. You just advocate Voting futility come election season. You're simply a fraud and saboteur, come clean! Admit it!

So wtf does it say at the top of this thread ?! Your crass and baseless accusations emanate from a uni-dimensional, binary-obsessed, graceless, hyterical damaged brain !! You're another multiple-monikered DNC nutter 'Class Enemy' & de facto 1%-enabler and so much for your demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy !!!

You are unable to see that there are several roads to the same destination or to build bridges & I've had your number for a long time now .. 'WendySquid / JiffySmith' !!! Take a lesson now from your fellow DNC co-opters and stooges on this OWS forum .. come looking for me and I'll guarantee you'll find me and if you do want to trade accusations & analysis, then gird your loins & prep to take the hits !! This is OWS mthrfkr, where we're expected to think 'the unthinkable for The Duopoly-Deluded' .. so do what you have to do but be mindful of the consequences of your abusive, baseless, cranky & deluded personal insults !

Another postcard from the edge of sanity !!! Thanx !! Readers will be able to follow the narrative of this thread & note what was said & by who - even IF you can't ! In the meantime, perhaps try to consider :

Demand ''the release of the NATO 3 and Cecily McMillan and all others imprisoned in the United States as the result of political frame-ups. The defense of democratic rights and the abolition of police-state measures must be linked to the independent mobilization of the working class in opposition to the political representatives of the corporate and financial aristocracy and the capitalist system they defend.'' All this - like the persecution of 'Occupy' - on your hallowed Dem POTUS' watch btw.

WSmith, I think I'll forgive you, not that I gave it much concern anyway. I understand now where you seem to be coming from. I hadn't thought of the upcoming elections, and how that would explain people being skeptical of new comenters. I don't see why my position on any issue other than the one we are discussing makes any difference at all though. Like I've said before I am not right, or left, some of both. It seems to matter to you though. I don't know if we'd get along at all if we met in person, but I don't see how that matters if we can come together to address issues that we do agree on.

I'm new here, and may have an outside perspective. Further to the left further to the right, that is the exact opposite of what would appeal to people like myself. This isn't about blanket statements like left or right. I hold some views that would be called left, and some that would be called right, can we not take it on an issue by issue basis? If we can't agree on one issue lets leave it alone. Lets concentrate on the things that we all want to change.

I notice your new here wickerman.....so tell me where 'ya frum. You ain't from ParDisan-ville ...are ya?... and looking to join your depraved co-opting amigos & become yet another one of their Democrap, Neocon Sock Puppet....well are 'ya wickerman?

This is how you get banned Renny...and you don't even have to do any cussing.

I don't consider myself partisan. I think there are issues that we would disagree on, sorta the nature of the world isn't it? I do think that if we can't come together on somethings that we are all going to lose big time. I think of myself as an average working class American, my views don't align fully with the left or the right, some of both really. Most of the people I talk to on a daily basis fall sorta where I do. I am not sure if your comment is meant to be a provocation or not, if it is I'm not biting. All that I know, is that I am feed up with the way things are going in this country. Fighting among ourselves isn't going to fix it.

When "we" come together on things there are always going to be others who come together on other things or just plain opposing things. For, against or in-between the myriad of issues (war, poverty, gun slaughter, laws, regulations, equality, humanity, theocracy, public health care, etc). That makes us all "Partisans." Where do you fall, besides expressing truth??

I'm working class. Where I fall depends on the issue, and the proposed solution. I have voted Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Green party. I don't think that any of them truly represent the working class though.

The Democratic Party represents the working class, but the majority of the working class does not support the Democratic Party or bother to Vote. Kind of a fucked up situation. A party that supports you, but you don't support it.

wow again! can this possibly be your idea of how to build a movement or would you be one of those who are trying to destroy it? not only are you aggressively ignorant you are also really obnoxious - that is a bad combination! now respond to my other comment and say your sorry - say that you realize it is time to educate yourself. come on now - you can do it - or you can go the dog route and make some stupid obscene comment

not too many to vote for are there? I doubt there will be many anti 1% propositions on the nj ballot and for sure not many anti 1% pols in nj to vote for in 2014 - and how about 2016 ms Clinton the war horse???

we agree - anti 1% is growing but has been around for a long time but no way to express itself (not much anyway) until occupy. not sure voting for a dem for governor will be much help but we will see - too many talk a good game but do not deliver. Clinton and Obama to name just two. all pols claim to support "the people" - very few say I am for rich people - we need to watch what they do not what they say.

Changing the national (planetary) dialogue is the 1st step in achieving the successes that will benefit the 99%.

Some pols talk the talk. Those that do not (against min wage, taxhikes on 1%, climate chg deniers) must be defeated. Those pols that do talk the talk must be supported and their feet then held to the fire.

So we must of course watch (listen) to what pols say (we can tell them what they gotta say too y'know), but most importantly we must pressure all pols to support the policies that will benefit the 99%.

so can you put up some evidence for your opinion. this is an incorrect reading of history - Finally, I assure you Protest, & Voting is the only thing that has ever succeeded in achieving progress. - can you tell us about voting and real change - sure fdr did much good but only because he was afraid that the country would go commie. lbj got civil rights passed but only after many deaths and uprising. voting for lbj did not do it - the organizing and disruption did. emma goldman was right about voting - look it up - kid. if by protest you mean the organizing of the populists or the sit down strikes or freedom rides then you are half right. seems a funny word to use for a sit down strike - protest. so show us where voting changed something and yes your age matters - it would explain much about how you think - also moral Mondays is good

I have a question for you - how old are you? and your line of -protest, vote, and then protest again - where has it gotten us - we have been going backwards since 1964 - on tax policy and economic issues life was better for most back then. they do not hear your protests - it is mostly a waste of time since you have no alternative - you elected your man in 2008 - change you can believe in - and what did you get. did he walk the picket line in Madison - sure taxes on the top up by 3%?? a health care policy written by the corporations (their stocks went up right? wonder why) and still shipping jobs overseas- take a look at the tpp - the secret tpp! look at that one and tell me how much better the dems are for us. i have no more time for you - start a real discussion and i will engage but this is boring

After this much electorate neglect and subsequent 1% exploitation and entrenchment, we're stuck with compromises and lesser evils. But all cognizant decisions and choices are. Perfection doesn't exist and the differences between Dems and Cons are gigantic!

If they (Dems & Cons) were the same, the Kochs & 1% wouldn't spend so much electing Cons, the 1%-GOP would not have installed a 1%-SCOTUS, who wouldn't have ruled into law Citizens United and repealed key portions of the Civil Rights Act.

The both-samers would have you believe the corporate influence is equal, just like union influence is equal.

we have had this (boring) discussion before - read emma goldman - carefully and let me know if you learn anything. you think voting is the answer - you think you can see the future - you think you know the TRUTH. i think you are wrong on all counts - can we leave it there?

I know you get bored every time the subject of real, actual change comes up, but then what can you expect from people that look at Al Gore and W Bush and can find NO DIFFERENCE between the two, I mean that's one dumb, boring person there.

before i respond to you i must say that i notice you could not respond to my last question - remember?? when you claimed that just because you attack one side it does not mean that you support the other side! remember that comment by you - do you? my question remains unanswered - it was does that apply to me also??? couldn't answer that could you? shows a complete lack of integrity - that has no business here at ows. so i think you should own up to your mistakes and stay or go away! now to your most recent comment - you are boring because no matter what i write you have only one answer - Al Gore and W Bush and can find NO DIFFERENCE between the two, - even though i have told you too many times what i think. i assume you are not dumb but for sure you are boring.

oh I just got around to it you are so needy flip, but yes my efforts help elect the Dems but i don't defend their actions just as your actions help elect the GOP even though you don't defend them, I acknowledge that telling the truth means less GOP and more Dems and I am prepared to discuss one against the other but to compare one and only one to some ideal fiction of your mind is useless bullshit.

So yes I charge you for helping to elect the GOP and hold you accountable for what they do.

now i call bullshit - your first answer was good - i am needy? bullshit - 5 days and you have been all over the site in that time - you would have never answered unless i had called you on it - dance all you like everyone here knows who you are. as far as telling the truth electing dems - huh? are you implying that my facts are in doubt. come on - you were close to becoming are straight shooter - now back to bullshitter

-- Kenton Ngo, PCCC Organizer
Want to support our work? Ed Schultz called us "The top progressive group in the country"! And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in $3 here.

Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

If I went by what they say I'm a liberal...the problem is its just a wrestling match ever watch WWF? They work for the same people and they are all putting on a show..hoping we don't notice the price of the beer and popcorn. I watched Obama tell a graduating class today that they won't just be competing with each other they will be competing with the world...he failed to mention they will be competing with slave labor and despite any education if there are no jobs they won't be competing at all...partnering with Communistic regimes is a good thing how? It's only good if you're on the profit end of it...namely the one percent , so go out get an education from any bank you can so you can start your service sector career 30 k in the hole. Debt is good for business owners it makes you more indentured and gives them more control.

So, Leo, on one side of your naive or traitorous mouth (I can't tell which) you advocate the pursuit of democracy! And on the other side you denounce the democratic process of electoral participation, Voting!

You're either completely mindfucked or completely evil. WRONG either way!

Pursue democracy people, VOTE!

Cheney-W repealed Wall Street regulatory laws and got us into bogus wars before they were in office one year. 1%-Cons and Teabaggers sabotaged congress and Obama and gerrymandered voting districts as soon as they were sworn-in after 20+ million Voters didn't Vote in 2010!!

The pursuit of democracy and Voting make a big difference, a HUGE DIFFERENCE! That's why the 1%-Cons pushed through Citizens United, so they could spend unlimited and undisclosed Billion$ to propagandize you to either Vote for their RepubliCon candidate or issue directly, or indirectly by Not Voting!

2010 Never EVER Again!! Unite, Vote and Win!!

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

So, WSmith, on one side of your traitorous mouth you advocate the support for corporate backed unaccountable representatives! And on the other side you denounce the pursuit of democracy that involves the actual participation of people Voting on the issues themselves!

You're either completely mindfucked or completely evil. WRONG either way!

The elected duopoly mayor and city council members of Seattle have colluded with big business to make the passing of a $15 minimum wage meaningless. Non-duopoly council member Kshama Sawant stands alone in resorting to democracy for the People to overcome yet another duopoly betrayal.

All municipalities throughout the nation can do what is now going to be done in Seattle. All people throughout the nation can sign petitions to actually participate in voting on $15 Now in their own municipalities without duopoly obstruction.

WSmith,

You KNOW that voting for unaccountable corporate backed candidates doesn't serve the interests of the People.

So you KNOW that claiming to pursue democracy by advocating voting for corporate backed unaccountable candidates is a LIE.

Democracy is the Rule of the People, not the Rule of the Unaccountable Corporate Representatives. Your lying about pursuing democracy is so obvious that it's obvious that there's no real intention to deceive in telling such lies. Your only intention on the forum of a movement that advocates direct action including direct democracy and does not advocate duopoly support is obviously as a disruption. A means of attack from a political party that seeks no challenge or exposure from individuals throughout the country who can't be fooled or subdued into accepting the traditional party line.

Either you can and there are candidates throughout the country worth voting for who won't submit to representing corporate interests or you can't and you're obviously just another supporter of the corporate run status quo.

At some point you're going to have to come up with your own material, for your Anti-Voting Campaign!

Both-Same and Unicorns are bankrupt propositions, we know.

But don't lead others down the path of 2000, 2004 & 2010 when People Voted deliberately and inadvertently (but abjectly erroneously) against their own best interests. Because we are all living through the pain and retrogression of those mistakes to this day.

We do have representative democracy, because our founding fathers knew we were a busy people, but they did not foresee brainwashed and wage-slaved people. People can't even manage to vote once every two years. Voting on daily legislation is fucking ridiculous! It's a bogus scam to fool people to not VOTE now! Voting is ALWAYS our only hope against Citizen United campaign funds!!

Don't listen to this idiot's double-speak nonsense! He's wants the 1% to dominate us, by you not Voting!

Listen to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren: Register and Vote and get everybody to do the same. 1%-Cons, ALEC, Koch Bros and the MSM they own are all wrong: Voting is a good thing, it's what we have too little of!

Since no one ever mentioned anything about people voting on daily legislation, the only scam is the fucking ridiculous attempt to get people to rely upon the corporate backed representatives you advocate rather than uniting in overcoming them through ballot initiatives and affidavits. The falsity of your un-researched fantasies about founding fathers are exposed by their own words.

"There are two views in which the word Inequality, as relating to the Citizens of a State, may be considered. Inequality, of Fortune, or of Rights, Privileges and Dignities. In the Case of Riches, the Inequality arises in the natural Course of Things; Nor is there an Instance of a State of any Consequence, subsisting without it. There were indeed several sharp Contests in the Roman Republic, with Respect to an equal distribution of Lands; but they were never of any Service, to the People, and were always attended, with the most unhappy Consequences. The Question appears therefore to be, in other Words, whether a pure democracy be the most favourable Government to the Liberties of a People."

"It is a very general political maxim, that Men can never possess a great degree of Power without abusing it. Hence, so few Instances of despotic Monarchs, who have not been the scourges of their People. In an aristocratic government, the Power being in a number of hands, this tyrannical disposition becomes more dangerous, and extends wider its baneful Influence. But of all Tyrannies, the most dreadful, is that of an whole People; and in a Government, where all men are equal, the People will infallibly become Tyrants. What Protection can any Laws afford a Citizen in a State where every individual, thinks he has a right of altering and annulling them at his Pleasure, and where nothing is wanting, but the capricious whim of a vile Rabble, to overturn all Laws and Government? If a Prince is oppressive, at least he has been taught in some measure, the Art of governing an Empire, and has commonly been educated, for it. The same may be said of an Aristocracy, they will at least endeavour to support the Dignity of a State, and will take proper Measures for the safety of the majority, of the People, though they may be unjust to individuals. But when the Passions of a People, conscious of their Liberty and strength are raised, they hurry them into the greatest extremities: an enraged multitude, will consult nothing, but their fury; and their Ignorance serves only to increase their Obstinacy, and their Inconsistency."

John Quincy Adams Friday September 1st. 1786.

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrouling disposition requires checks."

Alexander Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention 18 June 1787.

"Those who contend for a simple democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea, that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed."

"We know however that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens. In the savage State indeed, an approach is made towards it; but in that State little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized Societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations & soils, & according to different branches of commerce, and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light."

"Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles."

A few selected thoughts of James Madison from a letter written to Thomas Jefferson dated October 24, 1787

"From this view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized, and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the union."

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

"The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are most favourable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favour of the latter by two obvious considerations."

James Madison The Federalist Number 10, 22 November 1787

"The error which limits republican government to a narrow district, has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only, that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy: And applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy consequently must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."

James Madison The Federalist Number 14, 30 November 1787

"In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended on some favourable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired by a supposed influence over the people with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude; yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department, that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions."

James Madison The Federalist Number 48, 1 February 1788

WSmith,

You KNOW that voting for unaccountable corporate backed candidates doesn't serve the interests of the People.

So you KNOW that claiming to pursue democracy by advocating voting for corporate backed unaccountable candidates is a LIE.

Democracy is the Rule of the People, not the Rule of the Unaccountable Corporate Representatives. Your lying about pursuing democracy is so obvious that it's obvious that there's no real intention to deceive in telling such lies. Your only intention on the forum of a movement that advocates direct action including direct democracy and does not advocate duopoly support is obviously as a disruption. A means of attack from a political party that seeks no challenge or exposure from individuals throughout the country who can't be fooled or subdued into accepting the traditional party line.

Either you can and there are candidates throughout the country worth voting for who won't submit to representing corporate interests or you can't and you're obviously just another supporter of the corporate run status quo.

So, you see organizing democracy as being "fatalist, Unicorn diatribe". Not surprising as your call to ignore facts and just comply with the status quo goes hand in hand with advocating the election of corporaticians. How very...republican of you, in both the modern partisan and the Madisonian senses of the word.

WSmith,

You KNOW that voting for unaccountable corporate backed candidates doesn't serve the interests of the People.

So you KNOW that claiming to pursue democracy by advocating voting for corporate backed unaccountable candidates is a LIE.

Democracy is the Rule of the People, not the Rule of the Unaccountable Corporate Representatives. Your lying about pursuing democracy is so obvious that it's obvious that there's no real intention to deceive in telling such lies. Your only intention on the forum of a movement that advocates direct action including direct democracy and does not advocate duopoly support is obviously as a disruption. A means of attack from a political party that seeks no challenge or exposure from individuals throughout the country who can't be fooled or subdued into accepting the traditional party line.

Either you can and there are candidates throughout the country worth voting for who won't submit to representing corporate interests or you can't and you're obviously just another supporter of the corporate run status quo.

Direct democracy has already been working throughout the country for over a hundred years. Direct democracy working is why Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana. All that is needed is for the People to be nationally organized to vote on the same important issues at the same time at the municipal level to create unofficial national laws that can then be federally supported by non-corporate candidates elected from among the People who voted for such laws.

Denying people the right to vote by seeking to make voting mandatory and therefore an act of compelled speech violates the 1st Amendment's protection of the freedom of speech since the freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedom not to speak.

It is simply an ongoing FACT proven by the reality of compulsory voting in Australia that 100% or near 100% voter turnout doesn't affect anything. Two major parties dominate the politics of Australia;

the social democratic Australian Labor Party which received 33.8% of the votes in 2013 resulting in 55 seats in the House of Representatives and 25 seats in the Senate

and the center-right Coalition Parties which received 45% of the votes resulting in 90 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 seats in the Senate.

Thus the ongoing observable FACT is that the left/right dichotomy under mandatory voting in Australia is no different than the left/right dichotomy in the United States with its low voter turnout and 1st Amendment protection of freedom of speech. Increasing the volume of voters doesn't change the ever present reality of roughly balanced opposing perspectives and the partisan voting results.

Removing all obstacles from voting rather than seeking to remove the very aspect of freedom itself from voting is what is conducive for liberty.

"Referendums are a great start to achieve real direct democracy, not really there yet."

"Years of hard work ahead."

Simply organizing municipal initiatives nationwide and supporting the non-corporate candidates who will champion the initiatives at the state and federal levels will bring about national direct democracy. There is no 'work' aside from that as there is nothing else that is legally within the power of the People to accomplish.

"I know we MUST increase voter turnout to have an energetic true representative govt."

You know no such thing. You can't provide a single valid reason or example for what you claim so one actual example to your no examples is more than enough. Even so, added to that are

Brazil,
Ecuador,
Luxembourg,
Peru,
Singapore,
Uruguay

which all have enforced compulsory voting and a left/right political dichotomy. The only countries with enforced compulsory voting where such a dichotomy is either hard to discern or doesn't exist are

Argentina,
Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Nauru,
North Korea

all countries that either suffer from ongoing political instability or are socially oppressive.

That is now a 100% representation of all the countries to employ enforced compulsory voting showing the ongoing observable FACT that mandatory voting does not produce any significant political results from the voter turnout. In fact, people resistant to compulsory voting have been known to simply select the first candidate at the top of a list of candidates for which they have no interest thereby contributing greater support for a candidate than what is actual.

"denying people the right to vote by seeking to make voting mandatory....."???

That's a silly stretch. "remove the very aspect of freedom itself from voting...."?

Freedom... from voting??? WHAAAAT?! LMFAO!!! You can't be serious.

Are you serious? Are you truly ignorant of what a right is or are you simply being dishonest? Are you truly ignorant of the distinctions of what is freedom of choice and what is mandatory or are you simply being dishonest? Do you seriously think seeking to establish a law for mandatory abortions would be the same as having a right to choose an abortion?

A right is a legally enforced socially recognized entitlement of personal freedom. The act of voting is one of those rights. Nothing that anyone is legally compelled to do can be a personal freedom. Nothing mandatory can be a right. That's not an interpretation, that's a FACT. Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. Voting is the political right to communicate one's opinion in the ballot booth or even by mail. Voting IS a political freedom and your serious opposition to it remaining so is the only joke anyone can see.

"Nothing simple about creating real direct democracy. When we can eliminate elected officials we will have real direct democracy."

The existence of elected officials has nothing to do with the existence of direct democracy. They can and do exist side by side at the municipal and state levels and even at the national level in Switzerland.

"left/right dichotomy, political results"? I never said that. Using strawman arg cause you can't refute my actual statement?

I said mandatory voting would facilitate "energetic true representative govt."

You're the only person who resorts to strawman arguments whenever you can't refute the facts. As can be clearly seen, I had already stated that

"Thus the ongoing observable FACT is that the left/right dichotomy under mandatory voting in Australia is no different than the left/right dichotomy in the United States with its low voter turnout and 1st Amendment protection of freedom of speech. Increasing the volume of voters doesn't change the ever present reality of roughly balanced opposing perspectives and the partisan voting results."

Yet, in responding to that, you didn't seek to claim that it had been a strawman argument then. Seeking to do so now only clearly shows the constant attempts at distraction you resort to whenever you can't refute the facts. You said

"I know we MUST increase voter turnout to have an energetic true representative govt."

And the fact as I pointed out before is that you don't know any such thing as you can't provide a single valid reason or example in support of such a notion.

I contend voting is a right, and a civic duty, responsibility, obligation & rightly should be a constitutional amendment codifying that responsibility.

We gotta serve jury duty, put out garbage, and many other duties as citizens.

It doesn't matter what you contend when what you contend doesn't reflect reality. Entitlements to freedoms are not civic duties, responsibilities, or obligations. Wanting them to be so will never make them so and you certainly don't determine what's acceptable or too much to ask of others. If you don't like my reminding you of what's too much to impose upon others or what violates peoples' rights, guess what...YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPLY TO ME! You are under no obligation or mandate to reply to anything I say. That's what FREEDOM is about. Especially since you're ALWAYS the one to initiate these dialogs. So as long as you choose to continue making unsolicited replies to me, I will choose to exercise my freedom to respond to you however I damn well please.

Larger voter turnout is by no means what 'corp oligarchs' fear most. It's always irrelevant to them. They already control the choices thus it doesn't matter to them what the voter turnout is or which choice is chosen. They already win either way. Voter suppression is only a partisan tactic for defeating an opposition party. Since it is always selectively applied, it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence for high voter turnout resulting in true representative government. True representative government depends upon enough choices being allowed to represent the public's interests. In a duopoly, the public is always limited to just two choices no matter what the voter turnout is. This system is designed to limit any additional choices thereby prohibiting any chance of a true representative government. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24877-why-elections-still-matter-except-when-they-dont Furthermore, as mentioned before,

"In fact, people resistant to compulsory voting have been known to simply select the first candidate at the top of a list of candidates for which they have no interest thereby contributing greater support for a candidate than what is actual."

Compulsory voting results in various forms of resistance to it that misrepresents the public's choice. Far better to only have the results of the people who actually want to express their choice rather than compelling the people who don't to have opportunity to subvert the actual choice of the public in disgruntled acts of resistance.

Barring the violation of voting rights, the volume of voters has nothing to do with achieving a true representative government.

That's simply not true. The whole purpose of voting is to establish the public choice. Subverting that choice with legally coerced disinterested participants who would willingly sabotage the outcome in acts of resistance defeats the whole purpose of voting. It is most certainly more important to all committed voters that their choices not be invalidated by the input of more participants who don't care and would otherwise never be involved.

Both direct democracy and representative government only require the freedom of those entitled to vote to participate. If enough voters choose not to participate, it's because the choices being presented to them either aren't important enough to them or are unacceptable to them. That problem can never be solved by coerced participation.

Voting is one infrequent (biannual) & thusfar weak tool, but is very useful to get people involved with the real work between elections.

Organizing ballot initiatives is what gets people politically involved at any time throughout the elective cycles and actually brings about the changes they feel to be important.

Still we need increased turnout to give voting more effectiveness, Mandatory voting would do that.

I say this because the topic is the vote suppression currently going on. Mandatory voting would end this criminal phenomenon perpetrated by the 1% oligarchs political puppets.

Only ending private influences upon public officials can give voting more effectiveness and only establishing a federal right to vote with nationally uniform rules would end legal partisan state level attempts at vote suppression. Mandatory voting would only legally legitimize the rule of the oligarchs who already control the limited choices that the voters can make.

I don't 'need' anyone to represent me. I acknowledge that power resides with our elected officials who are bought off by corps.

I therefore recognize we must identify all vote suppressing pols, retire them, pressure remaining to represent us (instead of corps) while we work towards direct democracy & the elimination of this oligarch owned gov.

So... not appeased.

Wanna discuss the issue or would you rather continue the useless distraction of personally attack on me?

"North Carolina election officials are investigating a mailer that Americans for Prosperity sent to thousands of would-be voters in the state that contained bad information. The group has previously come under criticism for mailing misinformation to potential voters in at least three other states: Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin."

"Mandatory voting would only legally legitimize the rule of the oligarchs "

So you state that mandatory voting is GOOD for oligarchs?

Then why are they (oligarchs, & their extremist pols) engaged in the massive vote suppression effort?

You read what I wrote. I clearly stated

"Mandatory voting would only legally legitimize the rule of the oligarchs who already control the limited choices that the voters can make."

yet you deliberately decided to only quote the first half of my statement, excluding the part you can't refute in order to dishonestly engage in a strawman argument.

You also know that oligarchs are not involved in any voter suppression apart from partisan affiliation so asking about it as if oligarchs in general are involved in general vote suppression is also just as dishonest. Especially since you've already read my earlier reply to that issue:

"Larger voter turnout is by no means what 'corp oligarchs' fear most. It's always irrelevant to them. They already control the choices thus it doesn't matter to them what the voter turnout is or which choice is chosen. They already win either way. Voter suppression is only a partisan tactic for defeating an opposition party."

Oligarchs are more vulnerable when voter turnout, of the victims of economic predation is large.

Certainly not twisting the truth of oligarchs complicity in voter suppression so as to argue that less voter turnout is good,& Mandatory voting is good (legitimizes) for oligarchs.

That's nonsensical , & counter productive.

Protest! Vote! Repeat.

Of course, nothing you've said above is true. In order for your statements to be true, you either have to show that

A.

Oligarchs don't control BOTH of the political parties from which the vast majority of voters choose their representatives and therefore the oligarchs don't "already control the limited choices that the voters can make."

or

B.

Oligarchs ONLY control the Tea/Republican Party that engages in vote suppression to prevent certain voters from supporting Democrats.

If neither of those statements can be shown to be true, nothing you've said above is true and is therefore quite plainly "nonsensical , & counter productive" not to mention plainly dishonest.

Trying to eliminate vote suppression with compulsory voting would be like trying to eliminate anti-abortion with mandatory abortions. Absurd to say the least. People don't need to be robbed of their free choice to vote by having the vote imposed upon them. People need to have their right to choose protected at the national level to end vote suppression once and for all and people need to have their democratically determined choices protected from the sabotage of those who would protest any subjection to a coerced participation.

Oligarchic control of the peoples govt is not adequate reason to surrender the ballot/elected official process.

We can get leaders elected who will represent people not corps. And over time (years of hard work) tip the balance away from oligarchs and back towards people.

Not without robust, growing, grassroots movement to challenge the corporatist anti worker agenda on the street and beyond.

This IS happening now slowly.

This WILL accelerate as we sneak in one, two, and more leaders who answer to people not corps. Each successful election (Sawant, Deblasio, Sanders, Warren) builds on the last, creates momentum, & adds to the chorus of our street protests.

This is best achieved through educating more people & growing our demonstrations, & ballot action.

I submit more educated voters are better for our cause, & mandatory voting would facilitate increased turnout, while we educate the masses.

In any event, suppressing the vote is clearly wrong & certainly perpetrated by the current powers that be. That would be oligarchs who control the peoples govt that we are fighting.

Oligarchic control of the peoples govt is not adequate reason to surrender the ballot/elected official process.

Another dishonest attempt at a straw man argument as you very well know that no one has in any way proposed that "the ballot/elected official process" be surrendered for any reason.

We can get leaders elected who will represent people not corps. And over time (years of hard work) tip the balance away from oligarchs and back towards people.

Not without robust, growing, grassroots movement to challenge the corporatist anti worker agenda on the street and beyond.

This IS happening now slowly.

This WILL accelerate as we sneak in one, two, and more leaders who answer to people not corps. Each successful election (Sawant, Deblasio, Sanders, Warren) builds on the last, creates momentum, & adds to the chorus of our street protests.

This is best achieved through educating more people & growing our demonstrations, & ballot action.

In any event, suppressing the vote is clearly wrong & certainly perpetrated by the current powers that be. That would be oligarchs who control the peoples govt that we are fighting.

A lie repeated does not become the truth. Since you cannot show validity for the previously proposed statement that "Oligarchs don't control BOTH of the political parties" or that "Oligarchs ONLY control the Tea/Republican Party that engages in vote suppression" you cannot with any honesty claim that "suppressing the vote is...certainly perpetrated by...oligarchs who control the peoples govt..." You already know that the corporate oligarchy controls BOTH of the major political parties which includes the party that engages in vote suppression as well as the party that doesn't engage in vote suppression. Thus, you already know that vote suppression is a partisan, not an oligarchic driven act. Deliberately misrepresenting the nature of the act only serves to distract from the true source of the act where attention must be focused to combat it.

So many pols are unaccountable because corporate interests have rigged the system, by buying the peoples representatives, AND the PEOPLE have neglected the accountability power we have.

WE must vote 'em out if they do not serve us. WE have to put pressure on all pols to take back control.

Voting doesn't mean we submit & support the corruption. We can't resolve this by decreasing voter turnout.

The only way to win is:

Protest, Vote, Repeat.

Minimizing the massive efforts of voter suppression/intimidation serves those perpetrating such crimes against the people.

Encouraging people to give up their voting rights (that so many have died for!!) is immoral, ill informed and once again serves the oligarchs who are perpetrating the massive voter suppression/intimidation.

the People who elected representatives to promote their interests are instead faced with politicians who represent corporate interests and are therefore forced to resort to democracy to overcome the corporate favoring republicanism of the duopoly.

WE must vote upon the issues OURSELVES and cease sole reliance upon the protesting and elections that can never change the corporate loyalties of those elected.

Democracy doesn't mean that the republicanism that defines this country's government will be done away with. Democracy means that such republicanism will not be able to suppress the will of the People for corporate interests.

Once people regularly engage in voting upon the issues that are important to them, non-duopoly candidates in support of those issues will arise to support them at the federal level.

Encouraging people to ignore their nationwide democratic power for sole reliance upon republicanism is immoral, ill informed and once again serves the oligarchs who are seeking to continue acting independent of the public good.

They want/need people to ignore their democratic power for sole reliance upon the republicanism that has always betrayed them.

You reach back to founding fathers setting up this oppressive govt, but you neglect to note that they used THE VOTE to maintain control/oppression.

The same Vote that we have been slowly (centuries!!!) expanding, non landowners, non whites, non male, all gained this powerful tool only after...... wait for it.......

Protest, VOTE!! Repeat!!

We can support direct democracy while improving this corrupt system, In fact the best path to direct democracy is continuing the natural, evolutionary process of expanding voting rights, educating voters, growing this progressive movement, & reforming campaigns/elections & how issues are voted on.

Voting on the issues (we could encourage more referendum, and other direct democracy strategies) is the inevitable evolution of all democratic approaches.

Encouraging people NOT to vote minimizes the possibility of our getting to that desired evolutionary form of government.

Why the min wage links?

Reposting/editing my comments (Inaccurately! Never said "sole reliance"? Who said that?) without answering or honestly addressing the points is just childish.

Why present that 'straw man' "sole reliance" lie? You might be smart enough to realize that once you take part in such dishonest distractoid strategy, it reflects the weakness of your position. It illustrates that your position can't stand up to honest debate.

I clearly stated, & do again: PROTEST!! VOTE!! REPEAT!!

I support direct democracy, voting on issues, referendums, even eventually eliminating representatives.

But we MUST have mandatory/compulsory voting for any democracy to work. And we must identify and defeat all voter suppression/intimidation efforts.

Discouraging voting participation, and minimizing voting suppression efforts doesn't help the "democratic power", or "voting the issues" you pretend to support.

Claiming you support a 'better voting approach' is a poor excuse to push the oligarch line.

Voting on the issues is what has been going on for over a hundred years at both the municipal and state levels. It is neither inevitable nor an evolution. It is something that can be organized nationwide to have a national impact.

Encouraging people NOT to reject corporate loyal politicians goes against seeking a democratic solution. A candidate who doesn't accept corporate funding requires the support of the People. The People aren't going to support a candidate who isn't participating in some major involvement of the People with which they can identify. What better involvement of the People for prospective candidates to participate in than the nationwide organization of democracy?

"Why the min wage links?"

Why pretend you didn't read what I wrote immediately after those links in answer to your question?

If you don't like your own words throne back at you perhaps you should consider a more responsible approach to making comments. Engaging in silly responses to comments is just childish. Where did I say you or anyone else had said "sole reliance"? Why suggest such a lie? In your own words 99nproud/Inclusionman/VQkag2

"You might be smart enough to realize that once you take part in such dishonest distractoid strategy, it reflects the weakness of your position. It illustrates that your position can't stand up to honest debate."

You say "PROTEST!! VOTE!! REPEAT!!" without EVER referring to the democratic process of the People voting upon the issues to affect them yet you wish to object to the observation of advocating sole reliance on such methods.

So long as the 1st Amendment exists with protection for freedom of speech, voting will ALWAYS remain a Freedom of Choice personal decision that will never be made into some mandatory/compulsory tyrannical fantasy.

Discouraging the organizing of nationwide voting participation on the issues while equating the rejection of corporate funded candidates as "Discouraging voting participation" doesn't help the 99% you pretend to support and is a poor excuse to push the oligarch line.

Those who claim to want adult responses should first make them rather than engaging in the childish behavior of claiming points aren't honestly addressed while themselves dismissing reasons as being weak without ever honestly addressing or even identifying those reasons.

"Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."

"When a majority – even a very large majority – of the public favors change, it is not likely to get what it wants. In our 1,779 policy cases, narrow pro-change majorities of the public got the policy changes they wanted only about 30% of the time. More strikingly, even overwhelmingly large pro-change majorities, with 80% of the public favoring a policy change, got that change only about 43% of the time."

"When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it."

Can you identify any candidates you advocate voting for who are known to adhere to the affirmations presented in FreeDA http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-free-democracy-affidavits/ or at least explain how electing corporate funded candidates in combination with protesting is somehow going to switch their loyalties from the corporations to the People?

Until we reform campaign/election laws *through protest, voting, repeatedly) that have been created by corporatists to favor them over us, we MUST vote for the best candidate and pressure them to pass policies that benefit the 99%.

There is no other non violent way to achieve the necessary expansion of the democratic power that will usher in the evolutionary direct democracy goal we know best serves all people.

"Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."

"When a majority – even a very large majority – of the public favors change, it is not likely to get what it wants. In our 1,779 policy cases, narrow pro-change majorities of the public got the policy changes they wanted only about 30% of the time. More strikingly, even overwhelmingly large pro-change majorities, with 80% of the public favoring a policy change, got that change only about 43% of the time."

"When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it."

FACT: You have clearly chosen not to respond to that question which reveals the TRUTH that you can't honestly respond to those points.

FACT: You have clearly chosen not to respond to that question revealing the TRUTH that you can't honestly respond to those points.

I clearly asked

Can you identify any candidates you advocate voting for who are known to adhere to the affirmations presented in FreeDA http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-free-democracy-affidavits/ or at least explain how electing corporate funded candidates in combination with protesting is somehow going to switch their loyalties from the corporations to the People?

FACT: You have clearly chosen not to respond to that question revealing the TRUTH that you can't honestly respond to those points.

All you've done as usual is avoid addressing anything presented that doesn't agree with your expressed position while asserting your supposed opinion on the matter without any substantiation whatsoever. Then you went on to expose your dishonesty in saying

"Encouraging people NOT to reject corporate loyal politicians". Who does that?

Not me!

How people vote is their business. (write in, 3rd party, blank even) I'm not telling anyone how to vote, & certainly never said they should "NOT to reject corporate loyal politicians"

Yet you clearly and consistently respond to my comments about rejecting corporate funded candidates with

"Minimizing the massive efforts of voter suppression/intimidation serves those perpetrating such crimes against the people.

Encouraging people to give up their voting rights (that so many have died for!!) is immoral, ill informed and once again serves the oligarchs who are perpetrating the massive voter suppression/intimidation.

"Encouraging people NOT to vote minimizes the possibility of our getting to that desired evolutionary form of government."

"Discouraging voting participation, and minimizing voting suppression efforts doesn't help the "democratic power", or "voting the issues" you pretend to support.

Claiming you support a 'better voting approach' is a poor excuse to push the oligarch line."

Since you've NEVER seen me tell anyone not to vote and you've ONLY seen me advocating democracy and rejection of corporate funded candidates, your consistent responses of implying my "Discouraging voter participation" clearly reveal your equating of my advocating democracy and rejection of corporate funded candidates as "Encouraging people NOT to vote". Or else, you never would have been responding as you clearly have been.

Then there was your other lie.

"Apathy (voter, activism) CREATED our problems by allowing the corporatist, oligarchs to take control of the peoples govt."

Ignoring the facts of actual history to blame an entire nation of victims is truly reprehensible to say the least.

It is clearly known and documented by even presidents that the wealthy elites have ALWAYS been in control of the government. From the very beginning, the richest man in the country had been the first commander in chief and president and he had to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion which arose due to the betrayal of elected representatives supporting taxation favoring eastern big business at expense to western citizens. All of their non-violent protests and objections didn't mean a thing to 'their' elected government.

So, if you want to continue blaming the victims for your non-historical claim that "Apathy (voter, activism) CREATED our problems by allowing the corporatist, oligarchs to take control of the peoples govt." refute the historical FACTS presented in the quotes at http://occupywallst.org/forum/democracy-is-the-solution/ .

I don't even need to ask again "Can you" because it's obvious from your previous responses that all you can do is ignore what you can't refute while reiterating your opinion without substantiation.

Wrong again. Voter discrimination has nothing to do with the value of voting. Voter discrimination is what a party engages in to win over another party. Voter discrimination doesn't mean a thing pertaining to the issue of both parties already serving the same corporate agendas no matter which party wins. Everything has a context and the practice that some engage in in stating things outside of their intended context is the engagement of a strawman argument. If people want voting to matter beyond the issue of partisan contest winners, they're going to have to do a lot more than just protest, vote & hope. They're going to have to engage in real actions that will have a real impact on all of partisan politics such as presented here http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-free-democracy-affidavits/#comment-1031137 and here http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-free-democracy-affidavits/

"Citizens must learn to attack politicians, corporations and wealthy individuals in response to legislation they oppose. Nonviolent economic sanctions can be applied to these groups by boycotting their companies and products, disrupting shareholder meetings, waging effective campaigns via social media to effect price drops in their stocks, pushing divestment campaigns and impacting the operational costs of their businesses"

You said : " Voter discrimination doesn't mean a thing pertaining to the issue of both parties already serving the same corporate agendas "

If voting (or related discrimination) didn't matter to the corporatists, then why are the corporatist oligarchs perpetrating such a massive effort to suppress our vote?

I guess you added "...hope" to my refrain Vote, protest. Repeat as an example of the 'strawman' concept you described.? 'Cause I never said "hope".

I will say that action against our extreme conservative oligarch enemies is obviously part of protest. I mean actions described in your posted articles ain't in 'support. of rightwing corporatist policies.

So again, it seems we agree, and you are pretending not to understand that action is part of protest.

"If citizens wish to see their will manifested in this system of government, they will need to move beyond symbolic actions such as petitions and protests, and engage in effective economic, political and social sanctioning actions against politicians, corporations and wealthy elites."

The author, like many people, clearly distinguishes action as being beyond mere protest.

"You said : " Voter discrimination doesn't mean a thing pertaining to the issue of both parties already serving the same corporate agendas " "

"If voting (or related discrimination) didn't matter to the corporatists, then why are the corporatist oligarchs perpetrating such a massive effort to suppress our vote?"

The corporatist oligarchs aren't perpetrating a massive effort to suppress the vote. Suppression of votes is a partisan act engaged in by one of the parties serving the corporatist oligarchs.

I guess you added "...hope" to my refrain Vote, protest. Repeat as an example of the 'strawman' concept you described.? 'Cause I never said "hope".

No, my mention of 'just protest, vote & hope' was apart of my own statement, not an imitation of your words.

"So again, it seems we agree, and you are pretending not to understand that action is part of protest."

"I guess you just wanna argue.?"

No, as shown above from both the cited article and now from your own reply

"Vote, Protest (including action!!!!). Repeat."

the general use of the word protest is not generally understood to mainly include serious action, a fact you are pretending wasn't understood.

"When a majority – even a very large majority – of the public favors change, it is not likely to get what it wants. In our 1,779 policy cases, narrow pro-change majorities of the public got the policy changes they wanted only about 30% of the time. More strikingly, even overwhelmingly large pro-change majorities, with 80% of the public favoring a policy change, got that change only about 43% of the time."

These numbers are slightly off, but still I believe it clearly indicates that the past indicates we have close to 50% chance to create change.

Kinda makes my point.

Are you committed to inaction until the "numbers/chances look better"?

Did you catch the FACT I mentioned before or are you simply ignoring it in order to continue on in your babble? Here it is again in case you missed it.

Since you've NEVER seen me tell anyone not to vote and you've ONLY seen me advocating democracy and rejection of corporate funded candidates, your consistent responses of implying my "Discouraging voter participation" clearly reveal your equating of my advocating democracy and rejection of corporate funded candidates as "Encouraging people NOT to vote". Or else, you never would have been responding as you clearly have been.

No district-ing - at ALL - just one vote one candidate - majority ( real numbers ) wins. Would be so much more friendly for real challengers/challenges to the status quo. No more Gambling House favored rigged elections.

NOPE - no transferal of votes by candidate or party - a person drops out - as the best alternative - those individuals ( voting citizens ) should be allowed to recast their vote for "their" next best choice.

In other words = an "individual votes" or does not - no proxy's. Total numbers of votes counts = ONLY - no electoral college BS.

Don't expect positive results. I can request that everyone jump up and down on one foot in unison, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna get what I want. Voting is a mass delusion. People are willingly ceding away their personal sovereignty to someone they may or may not even agree with. That is all fine and dandy and I support peoples right to vote if they choose to do so, but will forever refuse to take part in the madness that is representative democracy.

Yes...we try an make it impossible to find a voting booth in your home town. Normally we put up fake signs, directing simpleton progressives and blacks to vacant lots and they are so effing stupid, they are never able to find a voting both. Works every year